Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually going to be in support. I have been seeing both sides of how some of these land uses have taken part in the past. I don't think that the mover of this motion has any intention to limit anyone's ability in terms of, let's say for example, leaseholders who are going to have recreational properties or cabins or the like; that's not the intention of the mover to want to put any kind of mandatory security on those types of leaseholds.

While the Member has mentioned the Giant Mine project and the now remediation that we have to deal with, and the lack of security there, and what it has incurred our government now to have to cover the bases, it is only one example of many throughout this territory that show that we have in the past, by not having some forms of security allowed for various forms of uses to take place that maybe would have otherwise been swayed or dissuaded, had there been appropriate mandatory securities in place. We have at last count, I think, somewhere over 400 various contaminated sites throughout the Northwest Territories, from as large as Giant Mine to as small as some call it barrels of diesel or what have you that have been left at an old site.

I think, when people or land users of various kinds are going to engage in commercial or industrial uses, that it isn't unbecoming of a government to expect that they put some degree of security in place. Remember that it is a security and, if you do what you are expected to do in this territory, then it's a good chance you're getting your security back.

I appreciate that, in other various forms, we've tried to make security a thing within our pieces of legislation, and I am supportive of the Member's motion. I look forward to passing this. Thank you.